She Loved the Dough

Heather Mack is the “Body in a Suitcase” murderer who is serving time in a “notorious” Indonesian prison for killing her mother in 2015 in Bali and stuffing her body in a suitcase. The motive was money. A taxi driver who saw blood dripping from the suitcase notified authorities. Mack was sentenced to 10 years in prison. While in prison, she gave birth to a daughter, Stella, with whom she was pregnant at the time of her conviction.

The trustee of her mother’s trust refused to pay Mack her inheritance due to Illinois’ slayer statute. The trustee and Mack finally agreed that Mack’s daughter, Stella, will receive the $1.6 million instead. Despite her incarceration, Mack has been seen lounging around prison with her boyfriend while also posting photos on social media of herself in restaurants with her boyfriend.

Not much new ground to cover.

1. Slayer statutes prevent a murderer from financially benefitting from her crime.

2. My definition of “notorious” differs from that of others when prison involves having a boyfriend and going out to restaurants with him.

3. 10 years for murdering her mother? The Menendez brothers wish they had committed their crimes in Bali.

Photo Credit:  Instagram/thisischriswhite (from linked article)

License:  Fair Use/Education

Shooting and Drowning, Oh My

John Chakalos was a Connecticut octogenarian worth $40 million when he was murdered in 2013. No one has been charged with his killing although he was shot with the same type of gun his then 20 year old grandson had recently purchased.

Chakolos' estate is to be distributed equally among his 4 daughters. However, last year one of his daughters, the mother of the gun owning grandson, disappeared at sea after the boat she was in with her son sank at sea after some holes were improperly repaired. The son/grandson was found 8 days later on a life raft. Now the 3 surviving daughters have asked the Connecticut probate court to declare the grandson as the murderer of Chakalos which they hope will prevent him from inheriting his mother's share of the estate (and leave more for them).

Several points and one question:

1. The grandson should inherit his mother's share of the estate. Slayer statutes apply when someone has been convicted of murder not merely suspected of murder.

2. Getting a bit wonky, the share of the now deceased daughter vested in her so technically she will inherit it and her estate will receive it and distribute it pursuant to her will.

3. If the Slayer Statute were to be applied, it should be applied to her estate although once again the son/grandson has not been convicted of her murder.

4. Is a 20 year old really capable of pulling off a perfect crime then repeating his success three years later?

5. If not, bad luck and odd coincidences certainly seem to follow the grandson.

Photo Credit: Facebook?

License:  Fair Use/Education

No Winning Here

Barbara Schwartz was a Manhattan socialite who was stabbed to death by her shut-in son, Jonathan, in 2011. She was survived by second husband, Burton Fischler, the son who killed her, and a second son, Kenneth. Her estate was estimated at $6 million at the time of her death.

In the six years since her murder, her widower allegedly lost $4.3 million of her estate in six months due to poor financial management including day trading, Kenneth committed suicide in 2013 when he learned of the financial losses, and Jonathan was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Schwartz’s first husband is now in charge of the estate and has sued to stop Kenneth from inheriting her estate. Got it? Jonathan killed her and survived. Kenneth did not kill her and committed suicide.

As if that is not complicated enough, Fischler is now challenging the pre-nup he and Schwartz signed in 2000. He claims that he signed it under pressure from her family and that he received bad legal advice. He also claims that Schwartz promised him she would tear it up later. His share of the estate under the pre-nup is $1.25 million which is in trust.

There are so many fun issues, let’s address a few:

1. The inheritance of the mentally ill son is being challenged under NY’s Slayer Statute which prohibits individuals from inheriting due to killing someone.

2. The ex-husband is not a truly disinterested party in trying to stop his son from inheriting from Mrs. Schwartz. If the committed son does not inherit, his share will go to the share of the son who committed suicide. Because that son is deceased and did not have children, his share will go to his father (the ex-husband).

3. I think that Fischler might have a statue of limitations issue with his challenge to the pre-nup. Post-2008, NY has a 3 year statute of limitations for such challenges which does not apply to prior pre-nups. That statute was six years although it did not start running during the marriage during some areas of NY. Either way, the statute is most likely applicable to challenges from divorce, not death.

4. Fischler’s arguments for contesting the pre-nup seem to be in the “let’s throw a bunch of mud and hope something sticks” vein. The poor legal advice line might work in a death penalty case with a court appointed attorney but should not work in a pre-nup matter where Fischler chose his own attorney. President Trump would likely call Fischler a “loser.”

Photo Credit:  Unknown/NY Daily News
License:  Fair Use/Education

This Never Works, So Why Try - Redux

A Penn State professor was allegedly murdered last week by the woman to whom he offered shelter and her friend. The professor was allegedly pushed off a cliff because he had recently revised his will and they thought they would benefit from his death. The woman was also miffed because he had criticized the parenting of her child. One of the reasons cited by the police in their arrest of the couple was they were "known drug users."

 One legal point and two "I can't believe this" points":

1. Most states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania, have "slayer statutes" which preclude murderers from benefiting from the will of someone they murdered.

 2. It is incredibly presumptuous of the woman and her friend to assume that they were named as beneficiaries of the professor's new will.

 3. If "known drug user" is a marker for a criminal, then half of the adult population of Colorado are suspects for crimes there.

Money Play

Roderick Covlin was arrested yesterday on charges he murdered his wife on New Year's Eve in 2009.  The estranged couple was in the midst of divorce when Shele Covlin was found dead in a bathtub.  An autopsy revealed she had been strangled.  Ms. Covlin reportedly feared for her safety and had an appointment with an attorney to change her will the next day according to court filings.  Since her death, her husband, an unemployed backgammon expert, has been blocked from receiving any of her $1.0 million estate.  She changed the beneficiaries of her $1.6 million insurance policy to her children the month before she died.

There are a litany of estate planning issues, but let's focus on the major ones:

1.  Changing a will and other documents during a divorce proceeding is always advisable if not prohibited by agreements between the parties or the domestic relations court.

2.  Simply changing a will can allow the other spouse to inherit up to one third of the probate estate if the spouse elects to take the elective share provided by statute.  Transferring the assets to a trust would be a more effective means of disinheriting a divorcing spouse.

3.  If convicted of murder, the husband will lose all benefits to his deceased wife's estate under NY's Slayer Statute.

4.  Am I the only one who doubts that Shele Covlin had an appointment on New Year's Day to change her estate plan? The day after perhaps, but not on New Year's Day.

This Never Works, So Why Try?

Alan Hruby is the 19 year old, college freshman accused of killing his parents and 17 year old sister so he could inherit his parent's estates after they stopped supporting him financially.    The self described shopaholic who got a thrill from using credit cards was in debt to a loan shark for $3,000.  He allegedly confessed to killing his sister so he would be the sole heir.

Several quick points.

1.  A slayer statute (murderers cannot benefit from their crimes) will prevent him from inheriting any funds from his parents.

2.  The poor sister was killed because he wanted all of the estate when half was more than enough to cover the $3,000. How tragic.

3.  If one needs further proof that the adolescent brain does not fully develop until 25, just look at the 19 year upper class kid facing life in prison, or death,  without a family because of a $3,000 debt.

Blood Money

Josh Powell is the Utah man who presumably killed his wife in 2009 and concocted an improbable story to explain her disappearance (he took his young sons on an impromptu camping trip at midnight on a snowy, December night).  During a custody dispute with his wife's parents, he locked himself in a cabin, hatcheted his sons to death, and blew up the cabin immolating himself in 2012.  His brother, who was suspected of helping him dispose of his wife's body, committed suicide a year later.  His father, who exhibited odd behavior after the wife's disappearance, served two years for voyeurism after authorities found pictures of neighborhood girls and women on his computer.

This case is back in the news because the Powell family and the Cox family are squabbling over the sizable life insurance proceeds on the lives of Powell and his wife.  A trust created by Susan Powell is the beneficiary of the policy on her life.  The trust presumably provided that if her husband and son were not living that the proceeds were to be divided between the Powell family and the Cox family.  Her father as conservator of her estate changed the trust in 2013 to provide that only the Cox family would benefit from the trust.  Josh Powell designated his now deceased brother as the beneficiary of his policy after his wife's disappearance.  His brother and sister are fighting the Cox family for those benefits.

Whew.  Several points:

1.  Bad facts make bad law.  On the face it seems that no one in the Powell family should benefit from the misdeeds of their family member but the law correctly applied provides otherwise and the families should divide the insurance proceeds, or at least keep the proceeds from the policy on their respective family member and have the trust proceeds evenly divided per the trust terms.

2.   It is crazy to think that someone acting on behalf of another person who the law presumes is alive but everyone else know is dead can change the trust created by that person three years after the date she died.

3.  The honorable action for the Powell family members would be to walk away from this.  However, when one brother is a murderer, the other is a conspirator, and the father is a convicted voyeur, all shame is already in the public sphere so they might as well see if they can grab some money, consequences and public opinion be damned.

Double Indemnity Fail

A SC woman murdered both of her 20 something sons, her ex-husband who lived next door, and her step-mother.  She tried to blame the crime on her oldest, murdered son.   She was the beneficiary of insurance policies on the victims in the amount of $680K.  She had previously killed an alleged intruder and kept 3 guns in the house.  She recently plead guilty but mentally ill and was sentenced to life in prison.

What are the estate planning and other issues in this crime?

1.  The killer is precluded from inheriting under the state slayer statute which prevents a murderer from benefiting financially from her crime.

2.  Without valid wills, the sons' policies will benefit their grandparents, or aunts and uncles if the grandparents are deceased.

3.   If a mother takes out a large life insurance policy on a child, the child should sleep with one eye open.

4.  It is never a good idea to live next door to a mentally ill ex-wife, much less one who has already killed a man and who has a life insurance policy on one's life.